You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> on 2007/02/01 17:32:51 UTC
Source File Headers - are they a MUST?
Its come up on the Struts Dev list a couple of times[1] that because
the ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy[2] uses the word
"should" rather than "must" in the following sentence that its OK to
release something that has source files that are missing headers:
"Each source file should include the following license header"
Is this the case? If source files must include them for a release can
the policy be clarified so that people don't read it as an optional
extra?
Niall
[1] http://tinyurl.com/3bqoxg
[2] http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Source File Headers - are they a MUST?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On 2/1/07, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/07, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> > * It's okay to not put the header in if the license header is large
> > compared to the size of the license header and the size of source file
> > is a detriment to the value of the product.
>
> That's the *only* exception I view as justified - i.e. if it's a one
> or two-line javascript file, the license header is understandably a
> bit much and would have a negative impact on the application as it
> must be transferred each time.
>
> But, IMHO, as a matter of policy, any compiled or server-side
> interpreted source code MUST have the current and correct license
> header. I just don't view that as up for discussion. Any PMC which
> releases code that doesn't have the license header should immediately
> pull it - or the Board should direct Infra to pull all their releases
> if they won't be bothered. -- justin
Agreed.
I just realised while scanning struts-dev that Niall's context wasn't
one of thinking that small files shouldn't need a license and one of
thinking the current Struts release should be -1'd because it doesn't
have the correct headers.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Source File Headers - are they a MUST?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 2/1/07, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> wrote:
> * It's okay to not put the header in if the license header is large
> compared to the size of the license header and the size of source file
> is a detriment to the value of the product.
That's the *only* exception I view as justified - i.e. if it's a one
or two-line javascript file, the license header is understandably a
bit much and would have a negative impact on the application as it
must be transferred each time.
But, IMHO, as a matter of policy, any compiled or server-side
interpreted source code MUST have the current and correct license
header. I just don't view that as up for discussion. Any PMC which
releases code that doesn't have the license header should immediately
pull it - or the Board should direct Infra to pull all their releases
if they won't be bothered. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Source File Headers - are they a MUST?
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
It came up in a board meeting a couple back (I think Wicket brought it
up in their report) and I don't recall Cliff viewing it as a big deal.
I imagine our view should be:
* It's okay to not put the header in if the license header is large
compared to the size of the license header and the size of source file
is a detriment to the value of the product.
Should we have a 1 line stub-header, or is it best to just have no
header at all so the coverage is assumed to be described in the
surrounding package?
Hen
On 2/1/07, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, let me put it another way. Is the ASF happy with PMCs releasing
> knowing that there are soure file headers missing?
>
> Niall
>
> On 2/1/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> > IANAL - and I am speculating; it may be stated "should" to defend our
> > rights in the case that a source file is missing that header but clearly
> > obtained from our package with a valid LICENSE and NOTICE file present.
> >
> > The absence of the header does not waive the author's copyright nor the
> > ASF's copyright to the work. But it does make it more of a headache to
> > defend.
> >
> > So include it. But we may not want to change the policy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > Its come up on the Struts Dev list a couple of times[1] that because
> > > the ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy[2] uses the word
> > > "should" rather than "must" in the following sentence that its OK to
> > > release something that has source files that are missing headers:
> > >
> > > "Each source file should include the following license header"
> > >
> > > Is this the case? If source files must include them for a release can
> > > the policy be clarified so that people don't read it as an optional
> > > extra?
> > >
> > > Niall
> > >
> > > [1] http://tinyurl.com/3bqoxg
> > > [2] http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> > > only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> > > constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> > > and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> > > official ASF policies and documents.
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Source File Headers - are they a MUST?
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
OK, let me put it another way. Is the ASF happy with PMCs releasing
knowing that there are soure file headers missing?
Niall
On 2/1/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> IANAL - and I am speculating; it may be stated "should" to defend our
> rights in the case that a source file is missing that header but clearly
> obtained from our package with a valid LICENSE and NOTICE file present.
>
> The absence of the header does not waive the author's copyright nor the
> ASF's copyright to the work. But it does make it more of a headache to
> defend.
>
> So include it. But we may not want to change the policy.
>
>
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > Its come up on the Struts Dev list a couple of times[1] that because
> > the ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy[2] uses the word
> > "should" rather than "must" in the following sentence that its OK to
> > release something that has source files that are missing headers:
> >
> > "Each source file should include the following license header"
> >
> > Is this the case? If source files must include them for a release can
> > the policy be clarified so that people don't read it as an optional
> > extra?
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > [1] http://tinyurl.com/3bqoxg
> > [2] http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> > only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> > constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> > and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> > official ASF policies and documents.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> > .
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Source File Headers - are they a MUST?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
IANAL - and I am speculating; it may be stated "should" to defend our
rights in the case that a source file is missing that header but clearly
obtained from our package with a valid LICENSE and NOTICE file present.
The absence of the header does not waive the author's copyright nor the
ASF's copyright to the work. But it does make it more of a headache to
defend.
So include it. But we may not want to change the policy.
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> Its come up on the Struts Dev list a couple of times[1] that because
> the ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice Policy[2] uses the word
> "should" rather than "must" in the following sentence that its OK to
> release something that has source files that are missing headers:
>
> "Each source file should include the following license header"
>
> Is this the case? If source files must include them for a release can
> the policy be clarified so that people don't read it as an optional
> extra?
>
> Niall
>
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/3bqoxg
> [2] http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
> .
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org